@all

Sorry, this is offtopic but I think I answer. And I won't start a new thread.

@Varthall
I think you forgot a smiley from your post ? And it's not April yet.

@all
You are all wrong. I answered only to Hammer to this: Quote:

MS Basic as it's OS

and NOthing ELSE.

I thought you all guys were intelligent enough to know that Basic interpreter IS NOT an operating system and can NOT BE an operating system.

Quote:

That means that large parts of C64 BASIC must have been personally written by Bill Gates.

That's very completely wrong too. Gates was Intel guy already at that time and he didn't want to make a deal with Commodore at all. It was one of their employees who wanted that deal and made the biggest part of the development from M-$'s part (yes, it was M-$ at that time in middle of 1970's, not M$). And Commodore's people did some of the work too. Gates himself made only a couple of lines of code maximum or not even that much. Commodore's people made the operating system, NOT M-$'s people.

The book "Rise and fall of Commodore" is very good reading and very very educating. People have too much false thoughts.

Do you people even know who invented Basic programming language ? (Hint: It was NOT Gates.)

I've programmed myself with AmigaBasic and it's very buggy and slow. It has some cool commands like commands to handle bobs/sprites.

And something about wikipedia. Because all people write it you can't trust it. There's possibly a lot of false things in Wikipedia.

_________________
Rock lobster bit me. My Workbench has always preferences. X1000 + AmigaOS4.1 FE
"Anyone can build a fast CPU. The trick is to build a fast system." -Seymour Cray

@Tomppeli

Quote:

I thought you all guys were intelligent enough to know that Basic interpreter IS NOT an operating system and can NOT BE an operating system.

CBM's MS Basic manages MS Basic based user applications. An OS manages user applications. Also, CBM's MS Basic is the main user interface (before GEOS) for CBM's 65xx based PCs.

Quote:

That's very completely wrong too. Gates was Intel guy already at that time

That's very completely wrong too. Microsoft KB-9 Basic (Copyright 1977) was released for MOS KIM-1.



Quote:

Do you people even know who invented Basic programming language ? (Hint: It was NOT Gates.)

Why one must care who care who invented it? In capitalist system, the entity who exploited the invention should be the focus.

CBM is also given the credit as one the first large OEM customer for yet start-up (1985) company called ATI.

Last edited by Hammer on 21-Mar-2008 at 09:40 PM.
Last edited by Hammer on 21-Mar-2008 at 09:30 PM.
Last edited by Hammer on 21-Mar-2008 at 09:25 PM.
Last edited by Hammer on 21-Mar-2008 at 09:21 PM.
Last edited by Hammer on 21-Mar-2008 at 09:16 PM.

_________________
Ryzen 9 7900X, DDR5-6000 64 GB RAM, GeForce RTX 4080 16 GB
Amiga 1200 (Rev 1D1, KS 3.2, PiStorm32lite/RPi 4B 4GB/Emu68)
Amiga 500 (Rev 6A, KS 3.2, PiStorm/RPi 3a/Emu68)

@Tomppeli, @Hammer

Quote:

Tomppeli wrote: @all You are all wrong. I answered only to Hammer to this: Quote: MS Basic as it's OS and NOthing ELSE. I thought you all guys were intelligent enough to know that Basic interpreter IS NOT an operating system and can NOT BE an operating system.

I can see this argument ruining the NatAmi thread, so let's nip this in the bud now.

The BASIC interpreter (written by Microsoft) used by C64 was not an operating system in the modern sense. It didn't manage system resources, programs often ran without its assistance, etc... However, it was a key part to the user experience of using a C64, you couldn't (AFAIK) load programs without it, and it did allow the user to control the C64.

So IMHO the built in BASIC interpreter was not an OS but a frontend.

Of course reasoned logic rarely gets in the way of a forum argument, so feel free to ignore my post and carry on your pointless (and off-topic) argument. Thank you.

@HenryCase

Quote:

The BASIC interpreter (written by Microsoft) used by C64 was not an operating system in the modern sense. It didn't manage system resources, programs often ran without its assistance, etc... However, it was a key part to the user experience of using a C64, you couldn't (AFAIK) load programs without it, and it did allow the user to control the C64.

I'm aware of MS Basic was not an OS in a modern sense i.e. it’s more like MS Windows 1.x/2.x/3.x front end or an application framework.

The point of the matter is that; CBM has a long relationship with Microsoft starting from PET and it gave opportunities (income) for the start-up company.

From the starting point...
Quote:

The PA-RISC stuff was called "Hombre", due much later and maybe even running WindowsNT

If CBM was alive; the results would be like
http://www.commodoregaming.com/pcshop/home.aspx
You have ex-PA-RISC engineers working for NVIDIA and Intel btw.

Last edited by Hammer on 21-Mar-2008 at 10:08 PM.
Last edited by Hammer on 21-Mar-2008 at 10:04 PM.
Last edited by Hammer on 21-Mar-2008 at 09:59 PM.

_________________
Ryzen 9 7900X, DDR5-6000 64 GB RAM, GeForce RTX 4080 16 GB
Amiga 1200 (Rev 1D1, KS 3.2, PiStorm32lite/RPi 4B 4GB/Emu68)
Amiga 500 (Rev 6A, KS 3.2, PiStorm/RPi 3a/Emu68)

@Hammer
Quote:

Hammer wrote: The point of the matter is that; CBM has a long relationship with Microsoft starting from PET and it gave opportunities (income) for the start-up company.

It was a reasonable point to make to those who detest MS. I doubt you'd find any major player in the computing industry that hasn't had dealings with Microsoft at one point or another, but not all computing companies bought software from them.

Quote:

Hammer wrote: From the starting point... Quote: The PA-RISC stuff was called "Hombre", due much later and maybe even running WindowsNT If CBM was alive; the results would be like http://www.commodoregaming.com/pcshop/home.aspx

We'll never really know what Commodore would have been like had it not become bankrupt in 1994. It would have taken a miracle to save Amiga in 1994, it was neglected for too long, so C= probably would have concentrated only on PC's eventually.

Back to the Natami now please. What questions would you like to ask to the hardware developer?

Last edited by HenryCase on 21-Mar-2008 at 10:24 PM.

@HenryCase

hmmm what question would i like to ask...

if it was only one question then i would ask..

"hey.... how can i help you make this happen?"

if it was more than one then perhaps it would be


1. What time scales for prototypes do you have?
2. How can i get involved with the Developer Prototypes and or Program
3. How much love would i need to give to be part of said Dev program
4. Would you consider Children and or Wifes as Bribe-able currency for above query?
5. Would Forum Members Souls do ? (these do count for currency in the underworld)
6. What Drives / Provides inspiration for you to do this ?
7. Do you have a personal Hero ? if so whom ?
8. What is your Favourite part of the Amiga Scene ?


well thats what i can think of at the moment.

@back on track

We will start the investigation with this chip.

Please send us an email if you are interested in assisting Thomas and Gunnar.

We will probably blog about this over the weekend.

R&B

_________________
genesi

@bbrv

Thanks for the support for the Natami project and with thomar and gunnar, make the best and up to date technology Natami motherboards for all amiga fans (who can ue aos4 ALSO)

- bbrv, have you seen the Natami in action and convinced by the great work allready done and give to the project a general help ???

bye

_________________
BTW, what you have done for the amiga today ????

-A1200+Mediator+VooDoo3+060/50+96mo+SCSI-KIT
-SAM440EP-667mhz-on MapowerKC3000+AOS4.1

Amiga Docs Disks Preservation Project

@All

Although I love the Natami project I really hope the final cpu is going to be a PPC of some sort because ultimately we are looking to run OS4 on Natami. Honestly I could not care less about another 266MHz SOC with the power of a mobile phone...

Natami with PPC/Cell yes (even on a separate card), anything else NO, NO, NO.

I mean I can run OS3.9 with Amikit on an Intel Quad...so nothing new there. We need to progress not regress...

Just my two cents...

_________________
www.loriano.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk

@TheDaddy

Quote:

I mean I can run OS3.9 with Amikit on an Intel Quad...so nothing new there. We need to progress not regress...

I don't particularly want to see OS4 on this machine. I'll be happy running OS 3.1 and AROS. I'd really like to see some way of getting a super-fast m68k chip on the system. To me, thats more useful progress then investing in PPC architecture along with an OS who's future is uncertain, at best!

Also if this unit encourages OS 3.x development, then theoretically apps which have been developed should work natively on m68k AROS, and compile on AROS x86/PPC too.

@TheDaddy

Useing a PPC (and OS4) would open a whole other can of worms, and I don't think it would make much sense either.

If you (or anybody else) is ever capable of freeing OS4 from the current chaos, one should make it run on "clean" HW like PPC-Macs,Efika,Sam,Peg etc and not on HW that is being hold back by an ancient chipset (and yes even SuperAGA is ancient compared to a bog-standard Radeon).

Looking back at what the Amiga really was:
A rather old CPU (the 68k was introduced in 1979) catapulted into higher performance by the use of special chips that could to common things much faster. If the Amiga had been completly CPU-driven it would have been much slower (AFAIR there was a Sinclair prooving that point). This allready changed with the introducion of the 68020, which could copy faster than the blitter, making that chipset somthing that slowed the computer down, instead of speeding it up.

Natami with 060 will be the same, a old CPU propeled by a relativly fast chipset, add a PPC or even a real fast CF and you'll have a system were it is best to ignore the chipset whenever possible.

Think of the Natami as something like the C-One, a slighly more modern way to be a C64. Now that C-One isn't of much interest to people who allready have an upspecced C64, with SuperCPU and the like, and it's of much interest to people who prefer to run C64-SW at highest possible speed (read running it emulated).

And it goes on ...

You moan about the use of SOC-style CPUs, but fail to understand that even if there was to be a PPC-card for classic (or Natami) it would still most likely be another SOC of similar capacity, as everything else would be far to complicated/expensive for a product that can ONLY be sold into an obscure retromarket.

There is also the question of future-development, when OS4 is used were are 100% dependant on the will of a single company (assuming the court-case ever ends), but when OS3.x is used it is allready prooven that further community-driven development is possible.

_________________
- We don't need good ideas, we haven't run out on bad ones yet
- blame Canada

@TheDaddy

The earliest OS4 is going to be out of the quagmire is September, and that's assuming that whoever loses doesn't appeal and drag everything out even further. So we're looking at another year at least before OS4 is usable by Thomas.

Frankly, I don't mind compromising and having a 68K instead. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

@Pleng

You are honestly saying that you don't want OS4 on this machine? You are happy running an obsolete OS like 3.1?

You are happy running on a super slow 266MHz cpu?

OS4 future isn't uncertain as we all know that development is ongoing...

I would be happy running OS3.9, MAYBE, but we all know that after a bit we would like to run OS4 on the machine.

Are you really saying that you'd be happy with a 266MHz cpu instead of a PPC or Cell?

I think the future is PPC as it's found in the latest consoles, but maybe that is just me.

_________________
www.loriano.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk

@Kronos

Quote:

A rather old CPU (the 68k was introduced in 1979) catapulted into higher performance by the use of special chips that could to common things much faster. If the Amiga had been completly CPU-driven it would have been much slower (AFAIR there was a Sinclair prooving that point).

Not completely... the Sinclair QL was hobbled because it used a 68008, which was a 68K with an 8 bit data bus to save costs. And it sucked about as much as one can imagine from the description I just gave. The Atari ST on the other hand used a standard 68K, and its support hardware was pretty primitive when compared to even the Amiga OCS. That shows how advanced the 68K was, that even a CPU-centered design like the ST could hold its own against a coprocessor-centered design like the Amiga.

@Kronos

OS4 makes sense.

Natami can have PPC and with a bit of luck (court case permitting) OS4 on it.

If that is a possibility then OS4 is the best choice for Natami.

_________________
www.loriano.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk

Quote:

TheDaddy wrote: Are you really saying that you'd be happy with a 266MHz cpu instead of a PPC or Cell?

First of all, I fail to see why it should be necessary to join the hardware arms race induced by resource hungry (i.e. ill programmed) software like all M$ has ever come up with.

Looking at my low end classic machine, I am surprised what it can do on only 50 MHz every single day I use it.

@TheDaddy

I don't know about Pleng, but what I'm saying (and I suspect he's on the same wavelength) is that I'd love to have OS4, but I just don't think it's very likely to happen.

Besides, to the end user OS4.0 isn't such a huge upgrade compared to 3.1 - architecturally it's a big step forward, but the real benefits to that (eg being able to have real memory protection, or scatter-gather DMA) haven't been seen yet; presumably they're coming in 4.1 or 4.2. Show someone who isn't an amigan a video of an OS3.1 program and an OS4.0 program that is skinned to have the 'classic' look, and they would not be able to tell the difference. From a programmer's point of view it's the same - most of the 'cool' stuff is either at the lowest levels of the OS where only device driver coders use it, or not yet documented.

Last edited by CodeSmith on 22-Mar-2008 at 09:43 AM.

Hello,

It's not easy to said coldfire, PPC,... with Natami. We hope and dream to see natami will be selling to end users but a lots of way untill this moment....

AOS4 is modern and need PPC that the reaction if a reflex but with the lawsuit It's hard to know the futur. I would like to use aos4 with a PPC but not available and with an old PPC card selling as gold, a maybe one day PPC card on mediator or on the natami maybe, hard to know....

thanks for all for supporting this project. DCE and thomas talk together with the help of bbrv ????

_________________
BTW, what you have done for the amiga today ????

-A1200+Mediator+VooDoo3+060/50+96mo+SCSI-KIT
-SAM440EP-667mhz-on MapowerKC3000+AOS4.1

Amiga Docs Disks Preservation Project

@Krischan76

>>First of all, I fail to see why it should be necessary to join the hardware arms race induced by resource hungry (i.e. ill programmed) software like all M$ has ever come up with.

Looking at my low end classic machine, I am surprised what it can do on only 50 MHz every single day I use it.

It's because our low end 50MHz can't do as much as more powerful cpus. You can't play full screen DVD let alone HD DVD can you?

And for your information, I don't know if you have been following, but dual and quad cpus, and it goes for PPC/Cell nowdays are a LOT LESS power hungry than the P4 so don't give me that. The big CPU manufacturers are concentrating on saving power too but at the same time giving a lot power punch.

_________________
www.loriano.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk

@CodeSmith

>>I don't know about Pleng, but what I'm saying (and I suspect he's on the same wavelength) is that I'd love to have OS4, but I just don't think it's very likely to happen.

You never know....

>>Besides, to the end user OS4.0 isn't such a huge upgrade compared to 3.1 - architecturally it's a big step forward, but the real benefits to that (eg being able to have real memory protection, or scatter-gather DMA) haven't been seen yet; presumably they're coming in 4.1 or 4.2.

I think OS4 is very different and much improved over 3.1, by just looking at it, cosmetically it's miles ahead, technically I have been told it is pleasure to use on a PPC.

>>Show someone who isn't an amigan a video of an OS3.1 program and an OS4.0 program that is skinned to have the 'classic' look, and they would not be able to tell the difference. From a programmer's point of view it's the same - most of the 'cool' stuff is either at the lowest levels of the OS where only device driver coders use it, or not yet documented.

Yes but what future has OS3.1?

After all we have been through to get OS4 are we going to let it die?

_________________
www.loriano.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk